Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays Google Input Devices Upgrades Hardware

I Became a Robot With Google Glass 134

Posted by timothy
from the no-you-didn't dept.
Nerval's Lobster writes "Videographer and journalist Boonsri Dickinson took the second generation of Google Glass out for a spin, and came back with some thoughts (and a video) on the hardware (basically unchanged from the first generation) and the new XE12 software upgrade (which includes many new features, such as the 'eye wink' option for snapping photos). New apps in the tiny-but-growing Glass app store include Compass, which allows you to find interesting landmarks; Field Trip, which allows you to walk around and look up local history; Video Voyager, a tool for sharing videos based on your location; and Strava Run, which visualizes your fitness habits. 'Glass has potential to take off as a new platform because it's not a phone,' she writes. 'The hands-free approach could expand its use to venues as diverse as the operating room and kitchen, unlocking new ways of using the data overlays to augment the real world.' Interesting features aside, though, her experience with the device raises the usual privacy questions: 'For the most part, Glass is a good prototype for this new kind of computer: but do we really need it, and are we ready for it?'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I Became a Robot With Google Glass

Comments Filter:
  • Wearable Tech (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elzurawka (671029) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @11:12AM (#45951025)

    There is huge hype in the media that THIS year will be the year of wearable tech. Until there are better input methods then voice, i dont think it will take off. I hate interacting with my phone through voice, and i feel like Glass would be even worse.

    Wearable tech is still a lot of hype by the industry, and I don't know if the consumer is really looking to spend money on it just yet. I feel like we need a breakout tech to really get people on board, and Glass hasn't done that.

    • Re:Wearable Tech (Score:5, Interesting)

      by boristdog (133725) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @11:20AM (#45951109)

      I've found that voice interactions with devices are generally annoying.

      But I have found that I like using with voice interaction when I am drunk or stoned. Then it's fucking hilarious.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I've found that voice interactions with people are generally annoying too.

      • In private, using voice to search on my Android device is much much faster than typing it out. I also find myself dictating notes to my device and watching it type out my words instead of jotting my thoughts down manually.

        In public, nobody should use voice commands.

    • Re:Wearable Tech (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Kelbear (870538) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @12:17PM (#45951777)

      Like most first-gen hardware, it's going to be a rough experience. Doing the limited release they way they have was a good idea.

      In the meantime, I think the most compelling part of Google Glass is the first-person recording. There are other wearable cameras of course, but they typically record from over-the-head views. It seems like Google Glass is a unique video recorder for parents.

        Like that saying: "The best camera is the one you have with you" nearly all of the pictures and video of my son are from my phone. Our family's actual camera stopped being used after we got smartphones last year. One of the most annoying problems with the phone is that I have to position the phone, and aim the phone to record moments with my son that I want to remember later. That means I have to choose 1) between recording the moment so that my wife and I can remember it for years, or 2) watching the moment directly instead of watching it through a fucking phone. With Google Glass, I get to see the moment directly, while also getting a first-person recording for later. Plus I wouldn't have to hold it while I'm waiting for the right time to start the video or take a picture, it's ready to go.

      If a consumer version of google glass comes out that isn't insanely expensive, even if was garbage for everything else, I might still buy one to just to record special events.

      • by lennier (44736)

        I think the most compelling part of Google Glass is the first-person recording.

        Isn't that also the part which everyone else considers an unacceptable privacy intrusion? Someone coming up to you wearing Glass might as well be holding a sign saying "hi, I'm going to record this conversation without your permission and post hilarious videos of you on social media! Do you want to 1) run away, 2) put on your Oculus Rift as a privacy shield, or 3) skip the preliminaries and punch me right now?"

        • Re:Wearable Tech (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Kelbear (870538) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @06:33PM (#45958149)

          Well, let's think about it. What if some parent showed up at the swim meet with a camcorder to film their kid's performance? Soccer game? Marching band? Maybe a birthday party? Those people aren't getting punched in the face today, what if they try filming those events on their phone? When they film it on a head-mounted camera, is it punchy-time yet? No, it's fairly well understood by those present why that person brought a recording device and it's accepted that recording devices are likely to show up at these kinds of events.

          Now, if someone sat down on the subway in the seat across from you and pointed a camcorder at you (whether or not you can tell it's off), that's clearly unsettling and I could very well imagine that person getting punched in the face. It seems there are already fairly clear social norms around when you can record in public. An etiquette for its use has already been established, and in reports from those using the explorer models, I'm already starting to see examples where the writer felt uncomfortable putting on Glass in places like the aforementioned subway. Word about how to recognize the appropriate etiquette will spread in time, and the usage will eventually follow (and of course we'll have people with bad behavior too, much like smartphone creep shots today). Overall, I'm not exactly in a panic about this technology. I'm also not terribly concerned about using Glass to record my kid doing things because the only time I'd take out the Glasses is in typical recording situations.

    • I hate interacting with my phone through voice

      If that kind of thinking catches on, maybe people will even start using phones to talk with each other again.

  • by kannibal_klown (531544) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @11:14AM (#45951047)

    If he became a robot, wouldn't that mean he was kind of a slave to whatever the Glass told him to do? Like someone was texting his eyeballs messages saying "Order a quarter-pounder-with-cheese and a Dr Pepper"

    If he wanted to say cyborg I'd buy it, or if he "felt" like an android I guess I could accept it.

    But "robot" tends to imply a mechanical device more devoid of free-will or thought than some of the other phrases. Heck, the blurb in which it's used is describing how it's expressing personality.

    • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @11:18AM (#45951091)

      speaking of robots, suppose I wear a tee shirt with 'robots.txt' printed on it and some wildcards below it.

      I wonder: will that render me invisible to google glass wearers?

      • speaking of robots, suppose I wear a tee shirt with 'robots.txt' printed on it and some wildcards below it.

        I wonder: will that render me invisible to google glass wearers?

        Doubtful.

        Similarly, I wonder how effectively some high-powered infrared LEDs sewn into the lapels of my shirts would hide my face from the built-in camera...

      • I wonder: will that render me invisible to google glass wearers?

        Here's an option: Google glass is prevented from photo-tagging or otherwise identifying any other google glass wearer.
        The only people that are identifiable in google glass vids are non-wearers.
        So if you want to stay invisible to the NSA, you'll need to join the google gang.
        bwa-hah-ha . pay up for privacy.

    • But "robot" tends to imply a mechanical device more devoid of free-will or thought than some of the other phrases.

      Well, we ARE talking about someone who's wearing Google Glass, after all...

    • by egcagrac0 (1410377) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @11:55AM (#45951489)

      The term that clicks for me is gargoyle [marksarney.com].

      I'm sure a few others around here have read that book, too.

  • and without them I'm kind of half-blind, so wearing google glasses really wouldn't be that nice.
    Sure, I might get a nice info overlay, but the 'resolution/sharpness' of everything else would really go down too far to be comfortable,...
    -> unless these 'tech-glasses' get some near-/far-sight compensation they are nor really that interesting

  • by TheBilgeRat (1629569) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @11:31AM (#45951241)
    It would help if they could design that into a form factor that isn't blatantly a pair of google glasses. I would want my wearable tech to be as inconspicuous and non-intrusive as possible, both to my experience and the public around me.
    • It would help if they could design that into a form factor that isn't blatantly a pair of google glasses. I would want my wearable tech to be as inconspicuous and non-intrusive as possible, both to my experience and the public around me.

      Yea, don't want to let the parents at that playground know you're secretly videotaping their kids, eh? That could end badly.

      BTW, I'm only half-joking (specifically, the half where I suggest you're a pervert - I don't know you well enough to make that determination)

      • It would help if they could design that into a form factor that isn't blatantly a pair of google glasses. I would want my wearable tech to be as inconspicuous and non-intrusive as possible, both to my experience and the public around me.

        Yea, don't want to let the parents at that playground know you're secretly videotaping their kids, eh? That could end badly.

        BTW, I'm only half-joking (specifically, the half where I suggest you're a pervert - I don't know you well enough to make that determination)

        So, are you suggesting that playground perverts are being stymied today by a lack of suitable surreptitious videography gear? Or that even in its current form factor that it is acceptable to walk up to people whom you deem "pervy" and demand they leave a public place because of their google glass?

        I could have said something like "I would like to not advertise an expensive wearable computer on my face to the unwashed masses on the subway train, since it would only lead to me being robbed". The fact that he

        • So, are you suggesting that playground perverts are being stymied today by a lack of suitable surreptitious videography gear?

          Well, since I didn't actually say that...

          Or that even in its current form factor that it is acceptable to walk up to people whom you deem "pervy" and demand they leave a public place because of their google glass?

          Huh?

          I could have said something like "I would like to not advertise an expensive wearable computer on my face to the unwashed masses on the subway train, since it would only lead to me being robbed"

          Then don't wear an expensive computer on your face when you're in public.

          I'd respond the same way if you had substituted "expensive wearable computer on my face" with, say, "expensive Versace purse on my arm."

          The fact that her face wear drew knowledgeable attention should be indicator enough.

          Right, the same way that walking around flashing a $3,500, diamond-studded wristwatch will draw a certain kind of attention. Thing is, if you don't want that kind of attention, don't do whatever it is that's causing people to pay attention to you. Expecting

          • I would argue that your point was tangential from the start. You took my point of wanting a less intrusive, more natural looking piece of kit straight to "ZOMG Think of the poor childrens! Perverts armed with google glass! News at eleven!". My follow on suggestions/desciptions were meant to be in the same absurd, vacuous realm. I simply was trying to state that I would prefer it to not be horribly ugly and obviously intrusive to everyone around the people wearing these.

            You didn't really suggest that

            • I would argue that your point was tangential from the start.

              No need to argue that - I was pretty sure it was obvious.

              That you continue to argue, even after accepting that my point was tangential, is what I'm having trouble understanding.

              You took my point of wanting a less intrusive, more natural looking piece of kit straight to "ZOMG Think of the poor childrens! Perverts armed with google glass! News at eleven!"

              not quite - I, rather subtly, pointed out a potential negative effect to the ubiquity of hard-to-notice, personal recording devices. Again, you're the one who decided to assume I was making a big deal out of it. FWIW, when I want to make a real stink about something, I do, in a most obvious way.

              My follow on suggestions/desciptions were meant to be in the same absurd, vacuous realm.

              There's nothing absurd of vacuous about

              • snip

                Holy crap. Did you seriously go line by line rebuttal?

                You went full retard. Never go full retard. [youtube.com]

                • snip

                  Holy crap. Did you seriously go line by line rebuttal?

                  Uh, well, you obviously read it, so...

                  You went full retard. Never go full retard. [youtube.com]

                  Translation: I ran out of rebuttals; so here's a ad hominem attack for your reading pleasure.

                  Thanks, but I have no need for someone of low intellect to be insulted by - I already have brothers.

                  • snip

                    Holy crap. Did you seriously go line by line rebuttal?

                    Uh, well, you obviously read it, so...

                    I seriously didn't. Did I miss some golden nugget of truth?

                    You went full retard. Never go full retard. [youtube.com]

                    Translation: I ran out of rebuttals; so here's a ad hominem attack for your reading pleasure.

                    Thanks, but I have no need for someone of low intellect to be insulted by - I already have brothers.

                    I bet they never let you get the last word in either ;)

                    • Translation: I ran out of rebuttals; so here's a ad hominem attack for your reading pleasure.

                      Thanks, but I have no need for someone of low intellect to be insulted by - I already have brothers.

                      I bet they never let you get the last word in either ;)

                      No, they're at least intelligent and humble enough to know when they should pull their feet from their mouths and shut up.

                      Unlike so many other people in this world. Natch.

                    • Pot...meet kettle? [canhasdiy.com]
                    • What does something I wrote while in a particularly good mood have to do with this conversation?

                      Also... stalk much, bro?

                    • What does something I wrote while in a particularly good mood have to do with this conversation?

                      Also... stalk much, bro?

                      Seriously? Stalking? Grow up, kid. You link to your website in your profile. Its the web. I know it must be confusing to millennials like yourself that never lived in a society where there was privacy. BTW, cool steampunk speakers and homemade guitar amp.

                      I can't draw all the lines for you. If you can't figure out why that link was applicable, I got nothing for you. I didn't see this thread past reply two as a "conversation". I replied in a manner to test troll potential. From my standpoint I was c

                    • You ran out of rebuttals yesterday.

                      Piling on more nonsense and ad hominem attacks won't change that.

                    • Alright - troll it is.
                    • Whatever you've got to tell yourself to sleep at night, douche-nozzle.

                      FYI, trolls are normally the ones consistently re-engaging the conversation, because they can't handle letting it end. You know, like you keep doing.

              • by mdielmann (514750)

                I, rather subtly, pointed out a potential negative effect to the ubiquity of hard-to-notice, personal recording devices.

                Yeah, about as subtle as a sledgehammer. I think the only people who weren't sure what you were subtly trying to infer are those who can't read English. Also, are you under the delusion that this is the first hard-to-notice personal recording device? I think you're about 20 years too late. Okay, maybe only 10.

                • Jesus tap-dancing Christ.

                  If I'd have known that pointing out the fact that bad people do bad things with stuff would generate so many stupidly butthurt, non-productive responses, I never would have said it.

                  Fuck but some of you guys latch on to and insist on arguing about the dumbest shit...

                  • by mdielmann (514750)

                    Indeed. Please also take some of your time to point out the sky is (usually) blue, dropped weights fall down, and the sun rises in the east. We will all appreciate the insight.

                    • Indeed. Please also take some of your time to point out the sky is (usually) blue, dropped weights fall down, and the sun rises in the east. We will all appreciate the insight.

                      Judging from the conversation up to this point, seems to me you would rather argue about it.

                    • by mdielmann (514750)

                      I'd argue about whether it was insightful, just like I argued that the comment that started this was subtle.

  • I Became a Robot With Google Glass

    Come on, editors (and submitters) - the least you could do is make sure that the headline makes sense within the context of the summary alone, rather than just copy and pasting it without thought for cogency.

    The relevant part of the article is this:

    The device also takes over as a fashion statement. One friend wrote to me: “I get a strong vibe that you are a robot inside. I’m not sure if that’s a nice thing to say, but in seriousness I think it’s an interesting way of expressing personality.”

  • by jigawatt (1232228) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @11:43AM (#45951365)
    We've spent all our time worrying about the singularity as if the machines would eventually gain insight and perspective beyond the best humanity has to offer. Much more likely will be that human cognition falls below the level of a mere machine.

    In short, the big problem is not that machines are thinking like humans, but that humans are thinking like machines.
  • 1) yes, 2) no (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EMG at MU (1194965) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @11:43AM (#45951373)
    Yes we need it. That shouldn't even be a question. Did we need transistors? Did we need the keyboard, the mouse, the gui, the network, the Internet, modern web browsers, tablets, cell phones?

    Are we ready? No. I do not believe so.

    We are not ready for google glass on at least two fronts: privacy and self control.

    Are you mad about google+ integration? Ok, then do you really think google glass will continue the trend of the ever watching google or will it reverse the trend?
    Would you be ok with Google mining your "anonymized" glass data to build a better profile on you? Would you be ok with Google mining someone elses "anonymized" glass data to build a profile on you?
    What about when glass data becomes part of what law enforcement / the government can subpoena?
    Are you upset when you try to install a flashlight app and it tells you it needs full access to all your contacts, current calls, and the network? Wanna bet that all google glass apps are going to want full access to your current location, your vision, your hearing, what you say, and who you are with?

    We aren't ready to deal with that yet, because as a society we still haven't found a current level of privacy and usefulness that strikes a balance. I think that there is a balance, but as users of the devices/services we just don't have enough power or information.

    On top of privacy, we just don't have the self control and awareness to not do stupid things online. It will only get worse if we start using always-on, internet connected wearable devices. And I'm not referring to anyone who uses social media and the internet responsibly, I'm referring to the people who aren't informed and aware of the implications of uploading something to social media or posting it online.

    How often do we hear about some highschooler suspended/expelled because he/she said or posted something stupid on facebook. Something completely harmless but since it is out of context for all the world to see, there are consequences. Furthermore, revenge porn is now getting into the courts, and its not just an angry ex leaking a sextape that two adults made, there are tons of people that don't realize that chatting naked with a stranger on the internet is a really good way to have that video posted to every shady corner of the web. For ever. Videos and pics of drunk college parties are preventing people from getting jobs upon graduation because they never realized that posting that time you pissed off the balcony at your frat house would show up on some HR person's search of you.

    We just haven't caught up yet as a society. That doesn't mean there are completely responsible informed people who would use google glass in positive ways, it means there are a lot of idiots who are going to do something stupid then cry when their life is fucked up because of something stupid they didn't mean to have broadcast to the world.

    I don't think that means we shouldn't move forward with google glass, I just don't think we ready as a society to use wearable computing devices responsibly.
    • Re:1) yes, 2) no (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @11:50AM (#45951429) Homepage Journal

      Yes we need it. That shouldn't even be a question. Did we need transistors? Did we need the keyboard, the mouse, the gui, the network, the Internet, modern web browsers, tablets, cell phones?

      Guess that depends on how one defines "need," doesn't it?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      We need it just like we need calculator watches or the Segway. Products die because they don't fit the way people work. Google glass will do so too.

      Privacy issues will never go away. People aren't going to like it, just like no one will like you whipping out tape recorder and setting it on the table during a dinner meal. Crap, I have a bunch of IP cameras that I install only when I am on vacation because I don't want them inside *MY* home. My family hasn't said it, but they wouldn't like it either. I

      • I think you illustrate perfectly why I don't think society is ready for consumer wearable tech.
    • >Wanna bet that all google glass apps are going to want full access to your current location, your vision, your hearing, what you say, and who you are with?

      Oh come on Slashdot, why do I keep hearing this FUD from your "geeks"? You think network transfers come magically and for free? And I talk in the middle of a storm that is blocking all my wireless connections. So I don't think that's possible, sorry. Either they have a dedicated broadband connection exclusively for you to connect Glass to, and unlimit

  • by DickBreath (207180) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @11:50AM (#45951427) Homepage
    Imagine. Those glasses could recognize advertising. Then mask it with other advertising that Google thinks you are interested in.

    For example, that offensive billboard with a barely clothed female could be replaced by a strapping muscle bound shirtless hunk . . . holding puppies or kittens.

    As per Vernor Vinge's story Fast Times at Fairmont High, everyone could tell Google what color and style they want their house to appear to other people wearing Glass. When you see artwork, Glass could replace it with different artwork that you prefer.

    Two people wearing glass want to watch a movie together? All they have to do is agree which wall surface will become the "tv".

    An underground meeting place could have a plain door, but members of the underground group, or invitees to the party would see a sign on the door, and could recognize one another.

    Let your imagination roam.
    • Imagine. Those glasses could recognize advertising. Then mask it with other advertising that Google thinks you are interested in.

      Like my very own private Minority Report.

    • Imagine. Those glasses could recognize advertising. Then mask it with other advertising that Google thinks you are interested in.
      For example, that offensive billboard with a barely clothed female could be replaced by a strapping muscle bound shirtless hunk . . . holding puppies or kittens.

      Actually, most folks would opt for replacing the puppies with barely clothed people. that's why advertising works already.

      Two people wearing glass want to watch a movie together? All they have to do is agree which wall surface will become the "tv".

      Or they could just stare lovingly (or vacantly) into each other's eyes.

    • by ralphius (1466709)
      Gives me a great idea for a 'killer app', have users able to pay to have everyone elses google glass overlay a more attractive face on top of the payee's whenever they are looked at. There are plenty of people in the world insecure enough for this to be a money maker...
      • That idea of making yourself, your home, etc, more attractive to other users was part of Vernor Vinge's fiction Fast Times at Fairmont High. In the story everyone wore augmented reality glasses. Nobody ever took them off because the real world was very unattractive. Everything was well maintained. That is, houses and bridges did not fall down. But absolutely nothing was done in the real world to make things look good. So the real world looked bad.

        There were other elements as well. People could vir
  • by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @11:53AM (#45951475) Homepage

    "For the most part, Glass is a good prototype for this new kind of computer: but do we really need it, and are we ready for it?'

    Wearable computers have been around for decades. I really wish that "journalists" would do some research before they write an article. Prof Steve Mann and Prof Thad Starner (who is the project lead on google glass) have had wearable computers since 1990's and the Aviation and military has used them since the mid 2000's. the only thing that is new is miniaturization and looking stylish.

    • by LostMonk (1839248)
      Not the same thing at all. Having a HUD at the pilot sit -- used by a tiny minority in a highly specific and specialized location -- and giving to the general public to be used however they want, are worlds apart in their impact on everyday life.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    More POV amateur porn coming. Porn has always been the historical vehicle by which tech as made in-roads into mainstream culture.

  • Remember "We are the borg..." from Star Trek? Who can't remember that scene when Jean Luc Picard gets turned into a borg.

    The Google glasses kind of look like that. Not to mention that the glasses make anyone look like a grade A dork (Think Screech from Saved by the Bell), someone who's all filled up to the brim with tech gadgets. Imagine that person wearing a camera...looking at you while he isn't talking to you...but perhaps making observational (to someone else who is listening in, belittling) comments

    • by ApplePy (2703131)

      Remember "We are the borg..." from Star Trek? Who can't remember that scene when Jean Luc Picard gets turned into a borg.

      I am starting to think the Borg are humans from the future, if we're not careful with technology. "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

      • You make that sound like its a bad thing. On Star Trek, the Borg are villains, but the only thing that might be considered evil is that their assimilation is involuntary. If joining the collective were a voluntary decision, then it might actually be a good deal.
        • by ApplePy (2703131)

          For any collective bigger than a 30-member hippy commune, joining has never in human history been voluntary.

          Any collective that garners sufficient force to coerce others to join WILL eventually use that power. While it's generally silly to argue over the world of science fiction -- knowing what we know about humans thus far, the Borg could not exist without coercion.

          It's almost happening already. Look at all the zombies staring at their little phone screens, updating the hive mind, or Facebook, whatever y

          • For any collective bigger than a 30-member hippy commune, joining has never in human history been voluntary...

            It's almost happening already. Look at all the zombies staring at their little phone screens, updating the hive mind, or Facebook, whatever you want to call it.

            Seems contradictory. Facebook was voluntary last I heard.

            • by ApplePy (2703131)

              Facebook was voluntary last I heard.

              That's how it starts... then slowly, inexorably, it sucks in the victim, drawing its sustenance in the form of human brains, eating our time for energy... thus creating more zombies who go on to further spread the Facebook.

    • by Salgat (1098063)
      I think you fail to realize that this is just a prototype limited by technology. The true future Google Glass, 5-20 years from now, will be indistinguishable from a pair of glasses.
      • The true future Google Glass, 5-20 years from now, will be indistinguishable from a pair of glasses.

        But will anyone wear glasses 5-20 years from now? Laser surgery means they are becoming less common.

        Few people wear glasses because they want to. So being like them is not that good a selling point for Google Glass.

  • A robot is "a machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command." A cyborg is "a person whose physiological functioning is aided by or dependent upon a mechanical or electronic device." The Terminator is a robot; Robocop is a cyborg. The writer became a cyborg, not a robot.

    • by Algae_94 (2017070)
      A robot can look like anything at all. It doesn't have to look like a human. An android is a robot that looks like a human.
      • True enough; I did not take care when copypasting my definitions. Let's try Wikipedia instead of Dictionary.com: "a mechanical or virtual agent, usually an electro-mechanical machine that is guided by a computer program or electronic circuitry." I think that does the job better.

  • Any technology that forces you to focus on different things with both eyes is going to be extremely detrimental in the long run. For the typical four-eyed geek without stereoscopic vision it isn't going to have much negative effect, might even force some of them to learn how to use their right eye. For those who had good vision before...
  • Do. Not. Want. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by waspleg (316038)

    I don't care if you're okay with annihilating what little privacy remains in your own life. I'm not okay with you using your headset to remove mine. Go fuck yourself.

  • Look, I'm still waiting for a killer smartphone app that motivates me well enough to upgrade from my flip phone. Now if someday I walk up to the vending machine at work and it will only accept payments via mobile app, that might do it. On the other hand, the cost/value equation of paying $300 more a year on my cell phone bill just for vending machine access might end up keeping me on a diet. As for Google Glass, perhaps the ability to just look at that Snickers bar and have it fall into my hands might ma

  • by loshwomp (468955)

    Winking is great, but I want the hut hut.

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...